If you want BS or Political Correctness you have come to the wrong place.

FAQ How can you be an atheist Jew?

An atheist is one who disbelieves in (or denies) the existence of God, Gods, and other supernatural beings.
A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew, or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.

April 14, 2007

Global Warming: What "They" Don't Want Us To Know

Do you think "they" are really going to tell us the truth about Global Warming? No chance. "They" are getting ready to leave our earth and go to another solar system, it is important that we are not informed until "they" safely leave. The fact is that Global Warming started in 1961, and it has nothing to do with being man-made. Moving to Toronto won't help anyone either. We are doomed, doomed I tells you:

My real thoughts on Global Warming: I think man does have a hand in it, but I think it is small. Cars weren't around for the last ice age, or any ice age for that matter. The fact is that oxygen levels on earth and the earth's atmosphere has never been a constant over time. Changes in oxygen levels have been around since the beginning of the planet, more than 6000 years ago (oh, and less than 5 billion years ago too), and these changes have led to major extinctions, and up until now, man wasn't around for those other "end times."

35 comments:

I think you're being a little reductionist here. Perhaps in reaction to some exaggeration in the mediuh.

I think the body of evidence for man-made climate change is hard to dismiss but equally hard to completely understand because it's vast and multi-disciplinary. I don't really want to debate the arguments: I don't feel qualified to do so. But while in the early eighties I was quite the sceptic re. MMGW, I now feel it's almost impossible to deny this reality. Much of the counter-argumentation is political anyway: for instance, Al Gore may or may not be an idiot but either way it hardly disproves what scientists have unearthed.

I didn't realize you were a climate scientist. You really think you know enough to counter the scientific consensus?

When it comes to complicated scientific topics, be it evolution, medicine, or global climate, it is usually prudent to defer to the experts. Unless of course you think there's some giant conspiracy.

Now, you may be right, and the scientific consensus is wrong, but just as I won't trust a sci-fi writer on this important issue, no offence, but I'm not going to trust a hypothesis from a blog writer, even if it's a fantastic blog :)

Me, personally, I buy that 'man' is causing the majority of the current climate change but what I don't buy is the politics. The science says that most of the damage is done, and only if we cut back a LOT, will we be able to make any difference. I think we're already 'doomed', we should divert our money to trying to prevent a few degrees of change, but treat the symptoms. If wawter levels will rise, let's build better dikes. Let's also invest more in better sources of energy. We cannot continue to burn stuff into our atmosphere.

The greenhouse effect is real, and is the only explanation for why Venus is so hot. As Carl Sagan warned, we don't want to end up like Venus (which is a bit extreme, but a good example).

Gert and Jonny, this is my first and probably my last post on global warming. I just wanted an excuse to use the Twilight Zone video.I don't claim to be a scientist or even well versed on this topic, and I did say man is helping global warming this time along, but I'm pretty convinced it is inevitable, and yes I agree we could do something to slow the process or at least keep the consequences from creating total havoc.

Yep, I think global warming is a propaganda. They say CO2 (carbon dioxide) was and is the reason for global warming. Then they blame how human release so much CO2 into the atmosphere and so on and so on leading to global warming. So how come the during the ice age where man kind had not invent industry or industrialize the world yet, but the all those damn ices in Ice Age melted away. Isn't it that they claim because of global warming the ices in the antartica or north pole or something like that are melting away fast? I think human thinks they are too important and everything must have to revolve around them. Instead of thinking how to stop releasing more CO2 and blaming on the CO2 was the root of global warming, but they need spend more time in learning why the earth in the past and in the present is so unpredictable; what is the true cause of global warming from the beginning of earth time until now... Maybe even if we know the true cause, we probably can't change the truth is that we probably cannot stop the real global warming or even slow it down, because the weather system is from nature mother herself, and she probably going to do what she wanted to do all along, and nothing we can do to stop her. I think our best strategy is to develop better alternative technology where we can let all human kind to migrate and live on different planets. In truth what make human harder to be extinct than the dinosaurs? We were and still are very adaptable to situations, environments and so on... But if our adaptability only pertain to earth but not beyond, then we are doom when the mother nature decides to get rid of human forever. We may just as well go to party with the dinosaurs in the long forgotten history, unless newly intelligent race once again will begin to mature and find out about us as if this is the case. Why global warming was blame on CO2? Probably because it's a good reason for stopping a developing third world countries from competing with the first world countries. Or maybe the global warming business is now popular and making a lot of people load of money, and so it seems the direction of talking about it more, or making people believing in global warming will secure the jobs related to this branch or field for many people and for many years to come. I think it's wrong to spread false facts and truths. Global warming cause by CO2 is one of the wrong thing we should be fixing. The truth is that I really believe in global warming, and we should study about it, but I do not believe in global warming is causing by CO2.

Visit my blog on http://www.blogmyway.org/?w=andy. I hope to see all blogger addicts come to my blog okie? Peace out...

I am not a climate scientist, either, but I am not one who just believes whatever Hollywood documentaries or newsertainment media puts out there for our consideration. I have been doing a lot of research concerning questions I had in my own mind about other contributing factors which cause climate changes...like beaj says, the human factor is only a small part of the problem. Changes are not only taking place here, but on other planets...and these types of changes are a natural events of the cosmos that we can do absolutely nothing about. Global warming on Mars and changes in solar activity

I think people should start investigating, educating and thinking about these things on their own instead of just listening to news media.

Sad, most people think since they will only be here for 75-100 years, why should they care? Some people need god belief to cope with the realities of life and that all things die...even the sun and stars. Some people just choose not to think about it at all. I, however, find the natural processes of the universe to be quite interesting and beautiful.

Why do you assume that I do not consider many views and conflicting information that is researched and provided by many, many scientists and research organizations? I did not say, nor did I imply that the scientific community is stupid. There are many differing opinions and all kinds of conflicting research data, and much to take into consideration.

I never said I have "decided" what to believe about global warming. I said that we non-scientist folks need to be aware of other factors involved with the changes that take place here and in our solar system instead of just listening what politicians, Hollywood and the newsertainment tells us.

Therefore, I am saying just what you said, consider all sides and ongoing research and educate ourselves. I am talking about being informed, and being aware of other research and data that is presented, and other factors that may be overlooked because everyone goes along as if the planet is always going to be here when it's not.

jonny, I would also like to point out that the link you provided is interesting information to consider, though the articles and links within the articles are a couple of years old (2005).

The links I provided above are to current 2007 articles which contain information and data from Researchers from NASA Ames Research Center in California and the U.S. Geological Survey, and other scientific sources. I didn't just pull this information out of my rear end.

jonny, I will ask you the same question you basically asked beaj...are YOU a climate scientist? You wrote: "When it comes to complicated scientific topics, be it evolution, medicine, or global climate, it is usually prudent to defer to the experts" yet you, yourself have already decided to put aside other professional expert research and information in lieu of other information which backs some very strong personal opinions of your own.

And what is this "scientific consensus" you write about? I haven't heard of any "consensus" of final proclamation on the matter of global warming. All we know is that there are climate changes, and research is ongoing to find out the reasons why.

There was an article a couple of years ago, in Scientific American I think, where the author put forward the hypothesis that humans have had an impact on climate for the last 8,000 years.

When humans started to undertake agriculture and domesticate animals around 8,000 years ago, not only was there some level of deforestation, but agriculture lead to increased emissions of methane into the atmosphere. While methane emissions today is much less than CO2 emissions, methane traps 20 times the heat that CO2 does.

The author pointed to various correlations between agricultural activity and climate throughout history. For instance, he noted that after the Black Death wiped out millions of people, food production greatly declined. After that the Medieval Warming Period ended and there began what was known as the Little Ice Age. One group of people who fell victim to the Little Ice Age were the Greenland Norse. As Greenland grew colder, they could no longer grow crops and their livestock perished. And as sea travel grew more perilous do to increased ice, the colony could not be resupplied by sea.

There is a lot more study that needs to be done to see if this scientist's claims hold up. But if it is true, it would serve as a rebuttal to all those people who snarkily claim that humans did not contribute to global warming during the past because there were no factories or automobiles thousands of years ago.

I think that global clinate change is influenced by human activity, at least in this modern age of technology. I certainly wouldn't try to put forward a case that prior to the modern technological era that mankind's actions had the capacity to influence climate on a global scale.

It is the degree to which human influence and activity may effect global climate that we might disagree on.

Frankly I think that economic concerns are always going to attempt to minimise the concept of human activity as having a major hand in global climate change.

I've been around environmental scientists for around 30 tears and not one of them has a great deal of doubt that this particular global climate change is not influenced by human activity. This is not an appeal to authority, just a crunching of the numbers.

Conversely, any environmental scientist I am aware of who states definitively that human activity does not have an influence on global climate change, seem to be inevitably in the pay of either the fossil fuels industry of the oil industry.

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

This is a good website that discusses both the human impact and natural factors which affect the Earth's climate -- it's all interconnected. This is a very interesting and informative website provided by the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Excerpt: "The Sun’s energy sustains and nurtures all life including plant, animal, and human. There are also many indirect effects that are at least as important. Other factors entering the climate puzzle, including greenhouse gases, aerosols, and atmospheric circulation, are driven by solar radiation, and they influence each other by complex feedbacks. To establish the impact humans have on climate, we must have solid knowledge of any natural factors impacting climate, the most important being the Sun. LASP researchers strive to better understand the Sun’s influence on Earth by monitoring total solar irradiance (TSI) and spectral solar irradiance (SSI) variations daily."

Climatologists are the "experts" who deal in forecasts and predictions. I don't envy their success rate so far in predicting "el nino" or incidents of drought and flood. God help us if we're dependant on them to predict something as major as global warming. Of course they are always wise after the fact.

It’s perfectly reasonable to question the global warming hypothesis even if you are not a climate scientist – everybody knows that they can’t even predict tomorrow’s weather let alone the weather in twenty years time. When I was at school they were always predicting that a new ice age was imminent. I read somewhere that it is the same folk predicting global warming. Others were predicting the end of oil, chromium and copper. A little later AIDS was going to kill off half the planet and spread like wildfire through the heterosexual population. Then there was ebola and SARS and now bird flu. It’s hard to take them seriously when you have just had the coldest summer in twelve years or when you discover that no one has yet noticed let alone suffered from a rise in the sea level.

It’s perfectly reasonable to question the global warming hypothesis when there are many reputable scientists doing so as well.

It’s perfectly reasonable to question the global warming hypothesis when it might eventually mean losing all the good things about 21st century civilization and be forced to return to a primitive agrarian lifestyle by rampaging green guards intent on ‘saving’ the planet.

I don't think anyone here has an agenda and that we agree that there is an exact scientific answer to what is causing temperature change (Global Warming). And it is also evident by the links provided that the scientific answer may not be achievable, and at least it still has a long way to go.Tommy, here is a quick video on theory that mammal farts killed the dinosaurs. In fact, we don't really know for sure why they died, though we know it had to do with atmospheric change, way before man came along.

Again, I'm convinced it is both cycle and man. I'm also convinced that even a small contribution by man, could have a drastic affect on helping things warm up......and if not drastic, at least minor.

I'm also convinced that science will be able to explain it fully if many is able to survive a few more centuries.

I'm convinced that human activity has and is having an impact on global climate.

Of course I am speaking from a place where we are now on level 5 water restrictions for the first time in the history of colonization.

My beloved Prime Minister believes that it is just part of the natural el nino effect and hence puts us in the same political boat with the US, but in sharp contrast with the rest of the world's opinion on the issue of global climate change.

Frankly, I have given up caring about it.

The one thing that still really bothers me about the issue is that global climate change, (if or when we feel some drastic and obvious effects from it), will only add to the fundamentalist religious mania.

We already have churches having "pray for rain services" (as if that is going to be productive), I would prefer it if the politicians in Canberra performed a raindance naked - at least it would give me something to laugh at.

Perhaps soon, the "pray for rain services" will turn into "repent now, there is no rain because you have pissed gawd off services" - and "armageddon is nigh services."

Any potential catastrophe is just grist for the mill for religious fundidiots. I would prefer the so called "scaremongering" of environmental scientists over the scaremongering of religious zealots anyday.

I would prefer the so called "scaremongering" of environmental scientists over the scaremongering of religious zealots anyday.

I’m not so sure. The Nazis and the communists of the USSR and Red China used science (shonky science) to oppress, enslave and starve millions of people. This is what I alluded to in my comment about green guards – a play on the term red guards. One day everyone will have to publicly confess that global warming is man made or be branded a denier. They'll have to wear it on their chests like a Chairman Mao badge.

I like jonney_eh’s notion that man can fix or adapt to most problems thrown at him. People need to have more faith in the creative power of humans. Remember nuclear winters? Maybe a few airburst atomic bombs over the Amazon jungle will pump enough soot in the air to cool things down a bit. Extreme I know but it might be worth considering in an emergency but I’m not a scientist, just a layman pondering using a winter to counter a warming.

I think it is important to have reasoned and sensible debate about the whole thing instead of accusing people of being in the pay of big oil or pushing a socialist agenda or of not being a ‘climate scientist’.

“We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.”Harold Macmillan

Oh, I missed the part about experts. I would be more likely to accept an expert's opinion than a politician. A politician is an expert at only working out ways to get people to vote for him or her.

If it came down to it. I am more likely to trust the experts associated with their specific scientific fields. Would I be more likely to trust a trained gynacologist's opinion about child birth over the guy who works at the packaging plant? Yup.

This doesn't mean that experts always get it right, but I consider that because of the scope and breadth of knowledge in a specific subject, that they make for a better amd nore reliable resource of information.

I think a politician using shonky science to work out ways to get people to vote for him or her is not as frightening as genuine belief in shonky science by hordes of zealots. The Nazis and communists genuinely thought they were advancing the cause of real science. Both parties were willing to sacrifice millions on this alter to further their hysterical ideas on what they thought was best for mankind. Not many democratically elected politicians go this far but the whole MMGW thing has the potential to go critical and induce mass hysteria.

Global climate change is happening whether people accept that it is occurring through the actions of humans or not. The rate at which it is occurring and whether this can be ameleorated by human action are also issues of contention.

Some scientists have suggested that when a tipping point is reached that there will be no way that we will be able to extricate ourselves through human action. This is not to say that the human race is done for as I don't think that is the case, but that some massive changes will occur that will make some places distinctly less habitable for human beings.

As global climate change is happening anyway, regardles of what factors are attributed to it - there will be a certain level of hysteria whether politicians acknowledge its existence or not. That is, the results of global climate change will inevitably cause degrees of panic and hysteria. I see this as unavoidable.

What I do see as dangerous, is the head in the sand mentality - of this isn't happening and if it is, my lifestyle has nothing to do with it.

The point I am trying to make is that draconian laws that severely affect productivity and human freedom may be enacted to counter what may be natural changes in weather conditions. Dissenters may be punished. Human beings have succumbed time and again to this sort of behaviour with dire consequences for the individual. I have often pondered what made a huge nation like China descend into collective madness for a generation and suspect that it was because a lot of the people bought into the economic theories of the communists. Even today I encounter people who think that distribution of wealth and socialism are good ideas, at least in theory. Collective madness is a germ that lies dormant in the population yet is ready to go ballistic at any time.

Climate has been changing for eons. It was much colder in Europe in the recent past as well as much warmer when the Romans ruled the world. No one seems to talk about the ice ages and mini ice ages anymore yet they clearly occurred and are scheduled to occur again or so I was told. It is possible that GW will counter an ice age and that would be a good thing. GW will also make some places more habitable and productive.

Humans also have a fascination with apocalypse. Throughout human history there has always been a current theory of impending apocalypse that captures the popular imagination.

To me, anthropogenic global warming denial is the same as evolution denial. You can always find a few scientists to back up the wrong side.

I don't listen to celebrities (like Michael Crichton) or politicians (Al Gore) when it comes to scientific issues, I listen to scientists, such as the 1000+ scientists that have written the latest IPCC report. To me, that's a scientific consensus. If you ever want to disagree with such a strong scientific consensus, you better have extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claim.

Jonny, I don't think anyone here is saying Global Warming isn't happening and that man isn't having a hand in it.What is up for debate is how much man is behind it.Just like in evolution, there is no doubt what happened, but there are many questions how and when specific changes occurred.

I don't see any economic system or the results of any economic system as being perfect, so I don't have a problem with the concept that our actions probably contribute to global climate change.

I don't have a huge psychological investment in free market capitalism. Any system which works well and that provides the most freedom for the most people is ok by me. But, and now I will sound like my parents - with freedom comes responsibility and I am not convinced that economic models factor environmental responsibility into their game plan highly enough.

There is also the concern for me, at least, that rampant materialism, which I equate with the concept of free market capitalism, may also have its down side. The downside may be excessively damaging levels of pollution.

All systems have their downside and global climate change may just be the downside of such a system.

I have always been concerned about our lack of care towards the environment in which we live. That we may in fact be "shitting in the only nest" we have, hasn't escaped my thoughts.

China's economic model certainly didn't prove to be perfect either, but as I said, I am not a believer that any economic or social model is.

IF GW is natural and the earth warms and cools of its own accord but humans believe it is unnatural and caused by humans and take action then when the Earth cools the cooling will be attributed to the action taken. Similar to the Aztecs who ripped out human hearts to ensure that the sun would rise in the morning. The sun rose so the action was justified.

Now I was looking forward to oil running out and am a keen cyclist and fitness freak so I am into saving the environment and everything. What I am concerned about and interested in is how we can avoid the loop described above. Does anyone have any ideas?

The loop of ritualized belief also concerns me. Except that I see it from the other perspective. I see it as potentially a belief that mankind cannot and does not have the power to influence global climate change and that therefore more human action of a similar kind will NOT effect the result.

The aztec example is one I often use myself to describe how the ritualized behaviour or belief instead of being part of the solution, maybe part of the problem.

Global Warming is just another belief system. Al Gore made global warming in his image, which is basically a lot of hot air.

Unlike the impossibility of proving or disproving the existence of God, it is quite simple to disprove man-caused global warming, and on the other hand, to prove that global warming is natural.

For the first proof, the Holocene Climate Maximum of 9000 to 5000 years ago, and the Medieval Warm Period of 1000 years ago, were both warmer than the current period, or even the expected warming this century. Of course, there was no man-made CO2 of any significance in those earlier warmer periods.

During the past century, the temperature went up the most in the first half of the century, and actually went down from 1940 to 1980 even as CO2 rose steadily.

What does this all mean? Simply, that there are other factors that drive global temperature changes that are more important than CO2, such as solar and orbital variations.

Visit my web site "Strong as an ox & Etc." and click on the "global warming" label for a feast of man-caused global warming skepticism.

I am not a global warming "denier," because there is abundant evidence that the Earth has cooled and warmed hundreds of times before from natural causes.

Or maybe God did it, His glory and wonders to behold, and now insignificant man is trying to hog the credit.